R v Younan, Ronny - [2016] NSWDC 436

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v YOUNAN, Ronny [2016] NSWDC 436
Hearing dates: 7 October 2016
Date of orders: 07 October 2016
Decision date: 07 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Costs certificate granted to the applicant.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug – acquitted by jury – JUDGMENT – costs application pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act – accused was the driver of a car in which the passenger was found to be in possession of drugs – circumstantial case in which jury were asked to assess whether the accused had knowledge of the drugs and was driving the car for the purpose of supplying those same drugs – Crown aware that a witness would not support their case – multiple “reasonable hypothesis” pointing to the applicant’s innocence – the accused had not contributed to the proceedings proceeding to trial having cooperated with the police inquiries
Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Allerton v Director Public Prosecutions (1991) 24 NSWLR 550
McFarlane NSWCCA (unreported 12 August 1994)
Mordaunt v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 121
Pavy NSWCCA (unreported 9 December 1997)
R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197
R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203
Regina v Groom [2000] NSWCCA 538
Category: Costs
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ronny Younan (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms Curren (DPP Solicitor)
Mr Boe (Counsel)

File Number(s): 2015/0013484
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: I propose to order that a certificate issue to Ronny Younan and I give my judgment now.
Introduction
Ronny Younan was arraigned on 29 August 2016 in relation to a charge that he on or about 9 May 2015 at Surry Hills in the State of New South Wales knowingly took part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 24 grams of cocaine pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. He was acquitted of that count on 1 September 2016 with a jury returning a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
The applicant now seeks pursuant to s 2 Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1967 (the “Act”) a certificate in respect of the matter for which he was acquitted. In relation to the pursuit of the application it was foreshadowed after the verdict of not guilty that an application would be made by learned counsel for the then accused or now the applicant. The matter was stood over for a date to be fixed. The matter came before me yesterday morning at 9.30 in the middle of a criminal trial I was conducting and I resolved that I should give judgment in the matter the following day as I now do.
I was provided with helpful written submissions and some additional oral submissions from both the learned counsel for the accused and the learned counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I also received an affidavit not objected to by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Younan, Ronny and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWDC 436
Decision Date: 07 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Younan, Ronny, the defendant was acquitted by a jury of the offence of knowingly participating in the supply of a prohibited drug. The case was heard in a court of law where the defendant appealed for costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act. The defendant, who was the driver of a car, was accused based on circumstantial evidence of having knowledge of drugs possessed by a passenger and driving the vehicle for the purpose of supplying those drugs.

The central legal issues revolved around the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the defendant's knowledge and intent beyond reasonable doubt. The court was required to assess whether the jury's decision was supported by the evidence and whether the defendant's cooperation with the police justified a costs certificate. The prosecution was aware that a key witness would not support their case, which further complicated the matter. The court had to consider the presence of multiple reasonable hypotheses that pointed to the defendant's innocence and his lack of contribution to the proceedings proceeding to trial.

The court concluded that the jury's acquittal was based on a sufficient reasonable doubt about the defendant's knowledge and intent. Given that the defendant had cooperated with the police and the prosecution was aware of a witness's unwillingness to support their case, the court granted the defendant a costs certificate. This decision recognised the defendant's innocence and his cooperation, which were critical factors in the proceedings.

The court ordered that costs be awarded to the defendant, reflecting the justice system's recognition of his innocence and the circumstances surrounding the case. This outcome underscores the importance of fair trial principles and the application of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act in similar circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs certificate granted to the applicant.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v YOUNAN, Ronny [2016] NSWDC 436
Hearing dates:	7 October 2016
Date of orders:	07 October 2016
Decision date:	07 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Costs certificate granted to the applicant.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug – acquitted by jury – JUDGMENT – costs application pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act – accused was the driver of a car in which the passenger was found to be in possession of drugs – circumstantial case in which jury were asked to assess whether the accused had knowledge of the drugs and was driving the car for the purpose of supplying those same drugs – Crown aware that a witness would not support their case – multiple “reasonable hypothesis” pointing to the applicant’s innocence – the accused had not contributed to the proceedings proceeding to trial having cooperated with the police inquiries
Legislation Cited:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Allerton v Director Public Prosecutions (1991) 24 NSWLR 550 McFarlane NSWCCA (unreported 12 August 1994) Mordaunt v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 121 Pavy NSWCCA (unreported 9 December 1997) R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197 R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203 Regina v Groom [2000] NSWCCA 538
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Ronny Younan (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Curren (DPP Solicitor) Mr Boe (Counsel)
File Number(s):	2015/0013484
Publication restriction:	Nil